Is Presidential leadership a myth? or: How specifically can a pres lead Congress?

Ezra Klein has an editorial at The Washington Post wherein he claims that we often refer to presidential leadership in a nebulous way that doesn't mean much of anything.

Quote:

In general, the difficulty of engaging with “the president should lead” theory of American politics is, as Jonathan Chait writes, “it’s not quite coherent enough to rise to the level of wrong.” Or, more to the point, it’s not quite specific enough to rise to the level of answerable.

In these arguments, “presidential leadership” plays the role of the briefcase in “Pulp Fiction.” It drives the entire story, yet we never get to see what’s in it. Peggy Noonan says of today’s dysfunctional politics, “if you’re a leader you can lead right past it.” How? Well, uh, look over there!

He goes on to argue that not only do presidents not lead Congress the way we expect them to, but that they cannot do so due to institutional factors.

I think he is partly right -- but only partly. My admittedly inchoate impression is that past presidents have exhibited the kind of leadership we often refer to in a hand-wavy way, and I don't yet buy the idea that times have changed to the point where that is no longer possible. Essentially, I think that once bipartisanship has failed, a majority party could, if they chose, ride roughshod over the opposition to pass legislation they want -- IF they are willing to accept the backlash.

I'd like to have this discussion apply as much as possible to a president/congress combination of either party. Of course references to specifics are welcomed, but please keep them to the minimum necessary to make your case for presidential leadership (or limitations/impossibility thereof) of Congress in general. Let's not rehash healthcare reform, gun control, or abortion debates.

So, given a president and a congressional majority of the same party, what specifically can a president do to pass controversial legislation? What are some obstacles to such leadership, and do you feel they are surmountable as things stand or are structural/institutional changes necessary (and desirable?) to break legislative deadlock?

Although even the fourth edition is a bit long in the tooth by now, Neustadt's Presidential Power is *the* go to book on the subject.

His basic thesis is that formal presidential powers, both within the executive branch and vis-a-vis the other branches, are overrated, and therefore the president must above all be the persuader-in-chief. A corollary is that the most important asset a president can have is a high approval rating, because when he is seen to speak for the people he is the most persuasive.

We specific reference to the scenario you are posing (White House, Congress, Senate held by same party), the most effective presidential strategy tends to be emphasizing his role as the de facto leader of the party. That means wielding his fund raising machinery, his ability to make presidential appearances, and so on, in a way that helps the party win races sure, but also in a way that enforces party disciple under his leadership.

LBJ was legendary for his ability to get legislation through Congress, but that was in an era where Congress was much more about personalities and fiefdoms than the partisanship and news cycle that defines today's Congress. A better model for today, would be FDR. His Congresses were by no means rubber stamps; there were conflicts over a lot of different issues and he didn't always get his way, but the only truly stinging defeat was for the Court packing plan (which accomplished it's purpose anyway). GWB seemed to be pretty successful too, but it's early yet for any great historical analysis to have come out of that administration.

I don't believe Presidential leadership is a myth so much that Presidents can't simply change the course of the nation on a dime like some people would like.

If a President gets up and speaks about abortion, they might as well have saved their breath. They're not going to convince anyone, because everyone already has an opinion on the matter. But if that same President were to propose a universal public wifi scheme, they'd actually be able to rouse support for their agenda because virtually no one has an opinion on it. That's how the 'bully pulpit' works - it allows the President to publicize and emphasize issues that would otherwise get overlooked.

In terms of leading Congress, the President has a significant advantage in terms of personnel. Congressmen and Senators rely on think tanks for their arguments and supporting data because they've got a staff of 3-5 low-paid flunkies to do their work, while the President has entire branches of government that can produce information for him. Unfortunately, to leverage this advantage, the President has to operate these branches in a non-partisan fashion - they can't be seen to be producing purely pro-President information or the opposition will never believe it.

That same advantage in personnel allows the President to potentially cross factions more easily if he chooses to use it. A Congressman or Senator simply doesn't have the people to maintain detailed information on every single member of Congress and their 'tilt points'. A President does have the people, if he chooses to use them in that fashion. By avoiding big name issues and concentrating on smaller issues, he can circumvent the partisanship that will kill his legislation.

So, Presidential leadership does exist. But we just don't have a President who has any idea where he wants to go.

Bush seemed to do just fine on that front. For all of the armwaving we saw about opposing Bush policies being political suicide, Now that Obama is president and full sentiment was there to do things like close gitmo, repeal PATRIOT, etc. we didn't.

I wouldn't say Presidential leadership is a myth, but the idea that our problems can be solved by Obama "leading" the Republicans in Congress to a solution is. This Congress is abnormally polarized, and the current GOP is abnormally radical. And it doesn't matter what kind of leadership Obama performs, he can't do anything significant without the House Republicans. The idea that Obama doing a better job of schmoozing them or whatever is going to get them to go along with him is silly. It's also counterproductive for the media to keep blaming these stalemates on Obama's leadership because it gives the GOP a pass for their radicalism and unwillingness to compromise.

Bush seemed to do just fine on that front. For all of the armwaving we saw about opposing Bush policies being political suicide, Now that Obama is president and full sentiment was there to do things like close gitmo, repeal PATRIOT, etc. we didn't.

The current Congressional GOP has demonstrated a willingness to bring the government to a grinding halt to a much greater extent than previous congresses. I don't think it's useful to point to previous presidents and say "well they were able to get things done."

Certainly I'm not trying to free Democrats from blame here, but I don't think you can have any reasonable discussion of the current situation without the recognition that the Republicans in Congress (particularly the House) are just not willing to compromise in any significant way.

Republicans currently have no incentive to compromise. If one desired to have their support, one would have to offer something in return. Any significant compromise would have to come with a corresponding significant benefit. Doesn't matter what you think is a significant benefit if the side you're offering it to doesn't see it as such.

I always chalk the paradox of Presidential leadership up to the fact that we got rid of a monarchy, yet somehow still long for a King.

The UK still keeps their royals around for a reason, there's a strong sentimental attachment to them, it seems like an innate human need to be able to look to the ultimate "ruler" of one's land and adulate them.

Meanwhile, the "city manager" types go about dictating policy and procedure, the type of which is far more likely to affect an average citizen's life experience than some grand pronouncement about a "shining city on a hill".

Bill Clinton, arguably one of the most successful post WWII presidents was impeached during the largest post WWII economic expansion in history. After 12 years of Republican Presidency, they didn't have it any more and they were supremely pissed about it. Fuck what the country wanted, or needed.

It's the #1 Plum Job in American government, even for those who say government is the problem. Like Ronnie.

The Senate Republicans and the Tea Party House will continue to hobble Obama because they want the over hyped grandeur of that office back.

Fuck what the country wants, or needs, until a ruler from our house gets to sit on the throne.

We are ruled by bitter, jealous teenagers masquerading as middle aged men and women.

I'm thinking the idea of "Presidential leadership" is an obfuscation of a dysfunction of government as the Founders envisioned it. The President is a symbolic office, envisioned as some'at similar to sailing-ship construction of the period. Not as the generality of how governments of the period were constructed, but more as a pretty good idea of how they should be. Faramir's comparison of GWB and FDR is accurate in the sense that they were both leaders thrust into positions more important by the events of the times, but in both cases some of their effectiveness must be assigned to the outside events which united the populace regardless of their personal virtues. Somebody had to lead, then. They were the guys who were wearing the pants at the moment. IMO the fullness of time will judge them....differently.

No proper comparison exists with the present condition. Yes, this level of contention is hardly uncommon in our history. The relative vitriol employed can't be evaluated; we lack the context of those times. I will contend, however, that rarely, if ever, has one faction previously pursued such a "death before compromise" path with such an utter lack of cognizance (more importantly, interest) in the will of the people as a whole. Previous periods of such contention carried the common goal of influencing the populace (or some sufficient plurality of them) to align with whatever bullshit they were propagating. I have to either conclude that our current crop of (minority in truth, majority in some venues) politicians are either so ideology-bound as to meet a clinical standard of "insanity," or.....

And just to put everyone's mind at ease, the Executive cannot, by Executive order, unilaterally confiscate the lawfully owned firearms of the citizens of the United States. But your State of residency sure can. In fact, your good state buddies can infringe on that right quite a bit before they get slapped down by the SCOTUS.

And lastly, no, the Executive cannot cede US sovereignty to the United Nations.

The current Congressional GOP has demonstrated a willingness to bring the government to a grinding halt to a much greater extent than previous congresses. I don't think it's useful to point to previous presidents and say "well they were able to get things done."

You can't seriously criticize Republicans for opposing a progressive agenda. There is absolutely nothing unusual in the Republican opposition.

The difference is that Obama has been trying to pound through a progressive agenda without even bothering to understand the opposition. Instead of coming up with new ideas or new approaches, he's simply been trying to pass policies that were rejected decades ago. It should come as no surprise that he's been failing.

And just to put everyone's mind at ease, the Executive cannot, by Executive order, unilaterally confiscate the lawfully owned firearms of the citizens of the United States. But your State of residency sure can. In fact, your good state buddies can infringe on that right quite a bit before they get slapped down by the SCOTUS.

And lastly, no, the Executive cannot cede US sovereignty to the United Nations.

It's not clear to me what the purpose of your argument is. Your examples just prove how much we distrust the federal government. There's nothing here that suggests we look to them as royalty.

The current Congressional GOP has demonstrated a willingness to bring the government to a grinding halt to a much greater extent than previous congresses. I don't think it's useful to point to previous presidents and say "well they were able to get things done."

You can't seriously criticize Republicans for opposing a progressive agenda. There is absolutely nothing unusual in the Republican opposition.

The difference is that Obama has been trying to pound through a progressive agenda without even bothering to understand the opposition. Instead of coming up with new ideas or new approaches, he's simply been trying to pass policies that were rejected decades ago. It should come as no surprise that he's been failing.

Obama's "agenda" ain't that progressive. The most progressive thing has been Obamacare, and even that's watered down from a UHC concept.

What policies were rejected "decades ago"?

Do you really think the scorched earth Galt's Gulch horseshit of the likes of Cantor and Ryan are going to pass muster?

Do you really not think that if a Republican who swears allegiance to Israel based on religious concerns gets elected and we end up in another war in the ME that the budgetary concerns of "austerity whores" like Ryan and Cantor will get tossed like so many stale donuts?

It's not clear to me what the purpose of your argument is. Your examples just prove how much we distrust the federal government. There's nothing here that suggests we look to them as royalty.

Not royalty the way the old European countries did, more leader cult fixation than anything else, which is part and parcel of a monarchy.

Think W striding across the carrier deck in the flight suit and the Mission Accomplished banner. Most of our supposedly "free" press swooned over that, not out of love for Bush, but because in their heart of hearts, they're suck ups to power.

The current Congressional GOP has demonstrated a willingness to bring the government to a grinding halt to a much greater extent than previous congresses. I don't think it's useful to point to previous presidents and say "well they were able to get things done."

You can't seriously criticize Republicans for opposing a progressive agenda. There is absolutely nothing unusual in the Republican opposition.

The difference is that Obama has been trying to pound through a progressive agenda without even bothering to understand the opposition. Instead of coming up with new ideas or new approaches, he's simply been trying to pass policies that were rejected decades ago. It should come as no surprise that he's been failing.

I think there's probably general agreement that PPACA ("Obamacare") was the largest policy change passed since Obama was elected. In case you never knew or need a reminder, its general form is the same as the Republican Party's own healthcare reform proposals of the mid-'90s, as originally outlined by the Heritage Foundation, the still-running conservative thinktank. The same policy was enacted by Massachusetts in 2006 with the support of Republican Governor Romney.

If that's what qualifies as a 'progressive agenda' these days, I think that suggests that perhaps our terminology, or even our sense of perspective, has shifted.

For reference, a progressive healthcare policy would be something along the lines of single-payer or a generally-accessible government run service that directs employs providers and manages facilities. Even Vermont's plan from 2011 is only 'single-payer lite', in that private insurance companies will still be allowed to compete with the state's own agency, losing many of the administrative savings that single-payer is supposed to provide.

Hey everybody, let's keep it on track. As a rule of thumb, if what you're saying about this congress or this president can't be generalized to past/future counterparts, you are doing it wrong™. If you must talk of Obama and recent obstructionism, tell us specifically what you think Obama could have done differently. Was it in his power to pass legislation better than what has been passed? What exactly would he have had to do to lead congress towards an outcome more to his liking?

Hey everybody, let's keep it on track. As a rule of thumb, if what you're saying about this congress or this president can't be generalized to past/future counterparts, you are doing it wrong™. If you must talk of Obama and recent obstructionism, tell us specifically what you think Obama could have done differently. Was it in his power to pass legislation better than what has been passed? What exactly would he have had to do to lead congress towards an outcome more to his liking?

Hey everybody, let's keep it on track. As a rule of thumb, if what you're saying about this congress or this president can't be generalized to past/future counterparts, you are doing it wrong™. If you must talk of Obama and recent obstructionism, tell us specifically what you think Obama could have done differently. Was it in his power to pass legislation better than what has been passed? What exactly would he have had to do to lead congress towards an outcome more to his liking?

Among other things? Learn what a carrot is.

Obama needs a carrot? He's been serving up carrot-raisin salad, he's the first Democratic President to actually bargain with Social Security.

Hey everybody, let's keep it on track. As a rule of thumb, if what you're saying about this congress or this president can't be generalized to past/future counterparts, you are doing it wrong™. If you must talk of Obama and recent obstructionism, tell us specifically what you think Obama could have done differently. Was it in his power to pass legislation better than what has been passed? What exactly would he have had to do to lead congress towards an outcome more to his liking?

Among other things? Learn what a carrot is.

Obama needs a carrot? He's been serving up carrot-raisin salad, he's the first Democratic President to actually bargain with Social Security.

What else do you suggest for a "carrot"?

Sorry, I was thinking in terms of first term. Both that and the gun control proposals both had some decent carrots, I will admit.

In this particular case, it's even more basic than the concept of a carrot. Obama does not appear to be interested in hearing other peoples' opinions. In some ways this is good; lobbyists have scarce little access. In other ways not so much, such as the comings and goings of members of his Council of Economic Advisers. The impression I get is that once we Understand his take on things, the people agree with him. Why deploy a carrot when people just need to be educated?

Obama is a poor example for this question of presidential power. He is inexperienced and shows little interest in building coalitions. This is not a game he is engaged in so you can't gauge the effectiveness of a president in that role through his example.

Hey everybody, let's keep it on track. As a rule of thumb, if what you're saying about this congress or this president can't be generalized to past/future counterparts, you are doing it wrong™. If you must talk of Obama and recent obstructionism, tell us specifically what you think Obama could have done differently. Was it in his power to pass legislation better than what has been passed? What exactly would he have had to do to lead congress towards an outcome more to his liking?

Among other things? Learn what a carrot is.

Obama needs a carrot? He's been serving up carrot-raisin salad, he's the first Democratic President to actually bargain with Social Security.

What else do you suggest for a "carrot"?

Sorry, I was thinking in terms of first term. Both that and the gun control proposals both had some decent carrots, I will admit.

MGT when you say 'carrot' do you mean 'that which Republicans find tasty' or 'that which Democrats find painful to offer'? I didn't think the change in social security calculations was going to go anywhere, and I'm not seeing anything actually appetizing in the gun control proposal, as the interstate transfer change is one scraggly little taproot.

GWB seemed to be pretty successful too, but it's early yet for any great historical analysis to have come out of that administration.

GWB was successful, but I'd be hesitant to chalk much of that up to GWB. An avocado could have crammed through legislation post-9/11 with that bunch of spineless ninnies.

Yeah, really. I mean, what kind of pursed-lipped schoolmarm, pinky-raised-with-teacup, don't offend the "other" side horseshit is that?

Unless it's a high form of sarcasm, in which case, apologies. But I doubt it.

The dude squeaked into the Presidency on a SCOTUS decision, ended up being the "War President" by stumbling ignorance of the situation, while Republican media operatives and Democrats desperate to not appear unpatriotic enabled unbridled foolishness.

It's entirely doubtful that this sequence of events will repeat itself anytime soon. Read as: The buffoons Republicans are currently offering up as POTUS potentials cannot get elected on their own merits, the last one (W) was lucky to get in.

I think there's probably general agreement that PPACA ("Obamacare") was the largest policy change passed since Obama was elected. In case you never knew or need a reminder, its general form is the same as the Republican Party's own healthcare reform proposals of the mid-'90s, as originally outlined by the Heritage Foundation, the still-running conservative thinktank. The same policy was enacted by Massachusetts in 2006 with the support of Republican Governor Romney.

While this talking point has been strewn around the Internet, it's not very accurate. Two notes:1. Portions of Obamacare were certainly proposed by a conservative think tank in the early 90s. But with that reasoning, you'd be able to argue that legalizing marijuana is a Republican position because conservative think tanks have proposed it. I hate to break it to you, but legalizing marijuana is not on the Republican agenda.

2. Romneycare was a result of compromise by a Republican in one of the most left-leaning states in the union. If you're claiming that it was a model for Obamacare, then you're also claiming that it's far to the left of the mainstream of America given its origins.

In either case, the basic policy goal of Obamacare (ensuring universal health care coverage) is a cherished progressive goal that is virulently opposed on the right. It's hardly any sort of 'compromise' on Obama's part (and this is a large part of the reason why its unraveling so fast - he passed it without actually gaining the necessary support for it).

If you look through Obama's policies you'll discover that none of them are remotely conservative. Indeed, his entire policy emphasis has been strongly opposed to anything that could be considered part of the conservative agenda.

Even worse, he's been engaged in all sorts of meaningless poke-the-bear actions. Like Keystone. Or gun control. Or not defending DOMA. Or retaining Holder. All of these are actions that have zero upside for the Obama Administration - they were foregone conclusions before he ever started the fight - but massive downside in that he's irritating the opposition unnecessarily.

Quote:

For reference, a progressive healthcare policy would be something along the lines of single-payer or a generally-accessible government run service that directs employs providers and manages facilities. Even Vermont's plan from 2011 is only 'single-payer lite', in that private insurance companies will still be allowed to compete with the state's own agency, losing many of the administrative savings that single-payer is supposed to provide.

I think you're trapped in the echo chamber. Ask yourself instead: what does a conservative health care policy look like?

Because that's where compromise starts - understanding what the opposition wants. In the case of health care, the conservative position is that cost containment is everything - that medical care occupies a protected monopoly in this country courtesy of overreaching government regulation. This is the center of the conservative position on health care, and it is completely, utterly absent from Obamacare.

To put this in perspective, consider GWB. His major domestic initiatives were both pet Democratic areas - federal control of schools and expansion of Medicare. In both cases he reached across the aisle to address the left's concerns, and he got them passed. Given the vitriol heaped upon GWB by the left, it's hard to seriously argue that the Democrats during his term were less 'obstructionist' than the Republicans in the Obama era.

Hey everybody, let's keep it on track. As a rule of thumb, if what you're saying about this congress or this president can't be generalized to past/future counterparts, you are doing it wrong™. If you must talk of Obama and recent obstructionism, tell us specifically what you think Obama could have done differently. Was it in his power to pass legislation better than what has been passed? What exactly would he have had to do to lead congress towards an outcome more to his liking?

If there has been unique obstructionism, it comes down to (ab)using Senate procedure. The fix there is obvious. Change the rules to centralize more power in the leadership. It wouldn't be unprecedented for the President to get involved in such an effort either. In the early sixties Kennedy openly lobbied Sam Rayburn to pack the House Rules Committee.

GWB seemed to be pretty successful too, but it's early yet for any great historical analysis to have come out of that administration.

GWB was successful, but I'd be hesitant to chalk much of that up to GWB. An avocado could have crammed through legislation post-9/11 with that bunch of spineless ninnies.

That explains the AUMF, the Patriot Act and so on, but what about NCLB and Medicare Part D?

First year in office new Presidents do get some shit done. Obama had ACA, Bush got NCLB and Part D. Absent 9/11 that may well be where Bush's "leadership" dried up. He already seemed to be going into auto-pilot by the summer of 2001.

First year in office new Presidents do get some shit done. Obama had ACA, Bush got NCLB and Part D. Absent 9/11 that may well be where Bush's "leadership" dried up. He already seemed to be going into auto-pilot by the summer of 2001.

First year in office new Presidents do get some shit done. Obama had ACA, Bush got NCLB and Part D. Absent 9/11 that may well be where Bush's "leadership" dried up. He already seemed to be going into auto-pilot by the summer of 2001.

Medicare Part D wasn't until 2003.

Then he's well within the paramaters of "don't question the wartime President you traitor!".

tell us specifically what you think Obama could have done differently.

In the summer of 2009, when I was packing up to leave the country, I watched the healthecare debacle unfold with an unattached horrified interest. The most striking feature of the public discourse was the lack of focus by the Democrats.

Coming into office with tremendous support and one of the bulliest pulpits I'd ever seen, Obama could have handed down the health reform bill he wanted from on high and told the congressional Democrats to pass it. He could have annointed a representative and a senator to put together a bill in line with his vision. Instead, he declared that healtecare reform was the order of the day, and let everyone in congress who wanted to make a mark for themselves to put forward a plan. As I recall, and this is many years and much disinterest later, four to seven different plans were put forward, each with plusses and minusses. The Republicans only had to sit back and let each of these plans come out, cherrypick the downsides from each of the conflicting plans, and present the resulting amalgam as the Horror of Obamacare.

It was a sign of tremendous political naivety. Rather than taking the reigns already on his fingertips, he let them fall into an ill-disciplined congressional party, where disorder and desire for limelight led to a dischordant scramble, and was torn apart by a concentrated opposition.

The executive branch is not meant to lead the legislative branch. That's the error. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are supposed to check each other, but that's not what's happening. At what point have we started to expect the President to be the supreme ruler? Sometimes I suspect people just want to be ruled over...

The executive branch is not meant to lead the legislative branch. That's the error. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are supposed to check each other, but that's not what's happening. At what point have we started to expect the President to be the supreme ruler? Sometimes I suspect people just want to be ruled over...

This only works if you imagine a federal government limited in scope as it was originally. In the modern federal government, the legislative branch simply doesn't have the resources to put together complex legislation. So virtually anything more detailed than "Let's make May 30th annual Roses are Pretty day", you need significant executive involvement.